My spaces live porn chat no signup required
Here is a sample of those quotes from those letters, including any of my comments in grey.Out of the first 23 letters that I opened, 13 (about 57%) of them, as quoted above, explicitly asserted that the writer had read "Michael's" profile and was interested in him based upon that profile, and three others (about 13%) implied it by writing such things as "I’m very interested in you [...] I believe the first sight , perhaps the first look can doom our fate", "you can't imagine how happy I am at the moment" and "I feel so happy to be here to coonect with you my dear".The site, which I won't link to, because I don't want to improve its search ranking, is asiandate.com, also operating under the domain aliases (i.e.without the "n"), and (more on these alternative domain names later), and redirecting upon registration from the domain My suspicions were aroused by my friend's description of the site: drop-dead gorgeous women everywhere, constantly sending him letters and chat pop-up requests, yet for every letter read after a lady's first, he had to pay ten credits, and ten credits likewise to send a lady a reply letter - instant messaging chats cost one credit per minute after the first three (free) minutes.Credits could be bought at varying rates depending on how many you bought at a time, ranging from per ten credits to per ten credits.
On 27 June 2014, I registered a fake profile, leaving all details unset other than name, age and profile description ("A Few Words About Yourself"), which I set (respectively) to "Michael Michaelson", 70, and "I'm just here to check whether this site is a scam. Notice that "Michael" explicitly requested only scammers to message him.
I also can't fail to mention that after the first photograph in each letter, it costs ten credits to open each photograph, and that, surprise, surprise, many (around 50%) of the letters "Michael" received contained more than one photograph.
To give you an idea of the frequency of the letters, around 60 letters arrived within the first nine days - about 6.5 letters per day.
So, about 70% of the first 23 letters I opened either by a charitable interpretation blatantly or implicitly lied, and/or, by a more likely interpretation, attempted to scam "Michael" by flattering him and pretending interest only so that he would spend money (between and a pop) to read and reply to future letters.
That's not to say that the remaining 30% were not scammers, and, indeed, the style of their letters was very similar.
A sample of some of the first few messages "Michael" received, along with my commentary, if any, in grey, follows.